09/06/2011

When we look at the commercial landscape of new Zealand it soon becomes evident that the very few peaks are occupied by a handful of men who all appear to be inter connected one way or another.

The other observation is that many of these persons did not get to the top using their own resources but did so while trampling a hard working Kiwi in to the ground.

Morals , values ,ethics and truth have nothing to do with it appears that it’s all fair in commerce and that includes matters which are considered illegal in other countries.

However in New Zealand the luxury of using the court to obtain what you want exists and in using the court you have the added benefit of financially stripping your opponent to ensure the takeover is swift and painless.. that is painless for those occupying the peak not so for the poor sod who is driven into the ground.

Truth is also easily avoided because there consequences of telling lies in court is minimal as no one will take you to court for perjury as it simply is not economical especially if you are the one who can afford big gun lawyers and write it off as a business expense .

It is time that we sought accountability to the truth in our courts and ensured this by making it uneconomic for those straying from the truth to do so. Currently our legal system appears to favour those who can afford the courts and those who can afford the courts use it to financially strip their victims.

Perjury prosecutions are rare because basically they are uneconomic against those who can afford to defend them.

Culprits of this tactic are those who hide behind company names , only when you delve further do the real culprits come to light.

Take this judgement for example FRESH PREPARED LTD in paragraph 6 of this judgement it states “It is important to record that the shareholders in Beach Road Nominees were Messrs Terry Hay and David Nathan. And that “Hay owned Pacific Flight Catering”

In the judgement the judge goes on to say that fresh prepared Limited , (that is Terry Hay and David Nathan ) “apparently pursued a scorched earth policy, forcing all parties to incur legal costs on interlocutories far in excess of what, by any objective measure, was the very modest amount of its claim, which was well within the District Court’s jurisdiction.”

What stands out is that Terry Hay was acting in a capacity which was more than a shareholder, he was preparing GST returns which conflicted with the figures which the owner of the company had obtained. He also communicated with the bank and then he and David Nathan used a company for which they were directors ( salad foods Limited)to purchase the debenture from the ANZ just prior to it rolling over for another year and immediately place the company in receivership to recover these funds.

Had the debenture remained with the bank the loan would have been advanced to the company for a further 12 months and there would have been no financial pressure on the owner of the company.

The receivers were appointed and a legal battle began, Terry Hay is good at these he uses them to bankrupt people and then he retreats to Honolulu so that he can escape his accountability to our justice system when he is faced with a multitude of fraud charges( hay charges )

The decision was favourable for the original owner of the great Dessert company limited but they ran out of finance for the appeal and the liquidators stepped in as planned.

This is probably the cheapest way to take over a company there is no goodwill to pay and you can then continue to trade with the company as if never ceased to exist even take over the trade mark as though you are still the same company

Although I have no evidence that this is the case in this instance , I suspect that he operators of the Great dessert company are puppets just like Lynne Pryor was in fresh prepared Limited and Salad foods Limited .

Terry Hay has other people fronting his businesses for him. This was and still is the case for fresh prepared limited which has now morphed into Salad foods run and operated by convicted fraudster Lynne Pryor under supervision of her brother Graham Pryor who has moved from media to the food industry

The reason for using other people is that his reputation precedes him and there are those int eh airline industry who simply will not deal with him.

Pacific flight catering supply food for Air Pacific ,Cathay Pacific , Air Tahiti Nui , China Airlines , China southern , Thai air lines and have just lost the contract to Malaysia Airlines

I should add that the original owner of the Great dessert company a very accomplished pastry Chef is no longer with us, the stress brought on cancer which eventually claimed her life.. Well done Mr Nathan and Mr Hay looks in my opinion it looks like legalised theft and murder.

21/11/2010

I have just returned from a certified fraud examiners conference in Melbourne, one of the topics was that of ethics another very interesting one was on the foreign corrupt practices Act.

Both of these are issues which relate to the dealings I have had with an American national Terry Hay who has been charged with offences and sought refuge in Honolulu.

The FPCA does not only implicate him it also implicates the director of PACIFIC RIM INVESTMENTS LIMITED William Donald DRAKE 43-006 Nana Place, Honolulu. We will be making a complaint under the provisions of that act and will keep you posted as to the outcome.

Basically it all comes down to ethics.. The ethics or lack of, of one person, when condoned by management of a company ,reflects the ethical values of the whole company and when a company’s standards are condoned by organisations they are members of it also reflects on the entire organisation .

It is therefore a very good ethical bench mark to look at companies and organisations in terms of what conduct is condoned.

Keegan Alexander is a member of the world wide MSI global alliance . MSI does not appear to have a code of conduct which embraces ethical values outside their organisation but will be sure to raise that with them when we bring this matter to their attention.

Background

For the past four years peter spring has pursued me through he courts on behalf of his client Terry Hay on a number of claims. The purpose of these claims were initially to remove me from attempting to prove that a liquidator a director were fictitious.

The circumstances were that Hay was the owner of a company fresh prepared Limited which he had placed Lynne Pryor in control of as director and shareholder

The company took legal action against a former director Steven DE JONG

Perhaps the most significant of these is [5] where on page 2 the judge states “in my provisional view this is one of those unusual cases where the successful party should not be awarded costs, and that they should lie where they fall.”

His honour also refers to The unnecessary use of interlocutory procedures, and the failure to properlyassess the true value of its claim well before trial. Stating that a realistic appraisalwould have shown that this litigation was an uneconomic exercise for allparties; at the very least it should have been pursued on a restricted basis inthe District Court.
He states at point 3[4] This proceeding was issued in March 2004 and has seen an extraordinary amount of interlocutory activity, predominantly of FPL’s making, which would have been avoided if the company had undertaken an early evaluation of the arguable legal issues and its prospects of success.FPL has apparently pursued a scorched earth policy, forcing all parties to incur legal costs on interlocutories far in excess of what, by any objective measure, was the very modest amount of its claim, which was well within the District Court’s jurisdiction. It was not until the company instructed Messrs Clayton Luke and Richard Harrison less than one month before trial that its case was properly formulated. I shall return to this subject when discussing costs.

Fresh prepared Limited ( FPL) then failed to pay the lawyers who had represented them in the final proceedings ( they took over from SPRING)

Liquidation proceedings were commenced and the company was sold by Lynne Pryor to Sanjay Patel who on the eve of the liquidation proceedings placed the company in voluntary liquidation with Bahubhai Patel

During this time Terry Hay saw it fit to harass me by placing advertisements in a Chinese newspaper mandarin times and joined himself in harassment proceedings which had been initiated by Lynne Pryor against me.

The claim of harassment came when I tried to contact Sanjay Patel and did the usual of phoning the company and calling on his residential address and continually finding Lynne Pryor there and discovering that She had the same Po box number as the liquidator.

The interesting thing was that I had never met, spoken to or investigated Hay yet Peter Spring LL.B laid a charge of harassment against me on behalf of Hay and Pryor and secured a restraining order on fiction.

When the ministry of economic developments investigated , Hay and Pryor were charged . Hay skipped the country and took up residence in his native USA.

Pryor pleaded guilty to fraudulently running a business but not before taking further action against me for alleged contempt of court.

“The Judge went on to express cautionary views as to whether the undertaking the contempt proceedings relied on was still in force at the time of the alleged breach and raised whether the District Court had jurisdiction to make a finding of civil contempt. He invited counsel to consider the matter further.

Despite the opinions of judges Spring continued to pursue me through the court causing great stress to me and my family contributing to the end of my 24 year marriage.

I made a complaint to the law society based on the conduct of Spring in my case and the observations made by judges in the previous reported matters which reflected the same excessive use of interlocutory measures and scorched earth approach .

My complaint to the law society they have never investigated. They simply wrote to me and told me that I had other redress available to me. Strangely enough that letter was not received by me until after the appeal period.

I have since then asked Spring as to what was happening with the current proceedings, where I won the interlocutory at the high court and they now have to provide discovery to progress the case.

So far the proceedings have cost me $49,000 in court action and I sought to have this sum recovered and I wrote to him. Spring carefully twisted my letter to be an allegation against his company but most importantly stated on 2 November 2010

“As to the court proceedings itself, we are not in receipt of instructions in relation to the samefrom our clients at present”

I replied and asked him to contact his clients with regards to the proceedings and on the 4th November I received this reply

““We cannot put the same before them as we are no longer acting for them in this matter and have not for some time.”

I can only assume that two days is a long time in law . But to me it shows a certain lack of integrity ethics and accountability to the truth , had the clients ceased being clients would he not have said so two days earlier and ist it a proper procedure to withdraw from the case in court?

I don’t know what others think but in my opinion it is dirty pool and any one being a partner of Keegan Alexanderwho support this are all tarred with the same brush.

I just hope that the multinational organisation which Keegan Alexander are associated with do have a policy for ethics .

I will forward this post to MSI global alliance and see what their view is on lawyers supporting corrupt practices and taking court action to help conceal corruption and then coming up with mind challenging statements as to their involvement with clients.

Will keep you posted.

In the mean time I am contacting all those who have had the misfortune to have had Peter Spring on the opposition team in court, I have already met with a few of you please do let me know who you are and we can work together to ensure that Lawyers are accountable to the code of conduct.

Several years ago I had to find a liquidator and director of a company called fresh prepared Limited this company has now morphed into Salad Foods ltd

Neither director nor liquidator existed but I was not to know that. But Terry Hay and Lynne Pryor knew and they needed me out of the way

So they sued me for harassment.. it didn’t matter that I had not investigated ,been near or even enquired after Terry Hay they sued me any way ( that’s what rich people do apparently ) Lynne was annoyed because I visited the home address of the director and the factory he claimed to own .

Before we went to court “ Julie” placed an advertisement in the mandarin times , this saw my house besieged with telephone calls and callers.( mandarin times original )

A year or so later I tried to find Julie and rang David Nathan. He was so upset that I had phoned him that he swore an affidavit and had me taken to court again for contempt of court.

The judge said that it was not contempt of court but they were not going to accept that and took it to the high court where I won the right for discovery.

The matter is still live in the court today and in the process I have lost not only $49,000 for my lawyers but it saw the end of my marriage which would have seen its 25th anniversary this month.

I fully believe that everyone needs to be responsible for their actions and that wrongs can be put right with compensation .

I foolishly believed that now that Lynne Pryor has been convicted of fraud and has been banned from managing a company ( yes I know she still is ) that someone may see it fit to withdraw the charges from the court and compensate me for my loss . I ran into Lynne at the supermarket and she did not wish to talk about what is happening to the proceedings .

I will add to this on a daily basis ( if I can) showing the intriguing story behind the persecution of me and the links to the people at Pacific flight catering. The Directors, who they are and the shareholders . I have already done my research and I can promise you that this is going to be an eye opener.

As I do nothing behind any ones back I am advising you are connected in one way or another with this blog . I will endeavour to contact everyone involved so that they all know what is being said about them and their associates on the web. People have a right to know who they are dealing with .

If there is anything inaccurate I do hope that you will let me know and I will correct . everything is well researched and I believe it all to be the truth and factual

07/05/2010

It has been an interesting week in court Monday started with a 10 day trial for Lynne Pryor the former manager of Fresh prepared Ltd, the trial did not go ahead – a guilty plea on some of the charges was entered. Terry Hay the co accused and Major share holder of Pri flight catering Ltd however is still in Honolulu seeking refuge from our law. See Charges over alleged fake liquidator.

I was involved in this case n the beginning , when a client asked me to locate the new director of Fresh Prepared Ltd Sanjay Patel and the Liquidator Bahubhai Patel.

Lynne had purportedly sold the business to Sanjay and when I rang to speak to him she asked if she could take a message. Believing through her actions that he existed and as he did not return my calls, I kept trying to get hold of him .When I called at his residential address , which was also the business premises of fresh prepared Ltd at 133 Captain springs Road Te Papapa , Lynne and her boss Terry Hay became nervous.. for good reason.. Sanjay was fictitious and so was the liquidator.

Easily solved.. First they sued me for harassment , even though I had never seen , been near, spoken to or enquired after Terry Hay and had only spoken to Pryor while attempting to locate Sanjay Patel . They also laid a complaint against my PI licence and also made a complaint to MAF alleging that I had passed myself off as a Maf inspector. As if that was not enough Hay through his chinese girlfriend placed three advertisements in the Mandarin times which saw my phone lines swamped and my house flooded with would be renters.

MAF proved their incompetence in pursuing the claim. When I had called at the premises of Fresh prepared Ltd to look for Sanjay I was told that the company was now Salad foods Ltd. I mentioned that the documentation on the wall was in the name of fresh prepared Ltd and commented on a MAF transitional facility document stating that MAF would be interested . ( I even passed this information on to MAF .)

After a lengthy investigation and A two inch thick file , Maf concluded , that I was guilty this was on the basis of one person saying, “I can’t remember who she said she was but I remember that she was from MAF “ and so I was warned for impersonating a MAF officer.

This suited not only those who had something to hide but it also worked in well for Neil Wells , legal adviser to MAF – who could now point at my tarnished reputation to vindicate himself. (I have evidence which connects Neil Wells with these other litigants between the two of them they played me like a ping pong ball between courts of law , hoping that I would break.) It was strange too that both these cases came up before the same judges.

Lynne comes up for sentence in JULY , she still has active proceeding out against me, Proceedings which she has not progressed since the High court determined that she and Terry Hay had to provide discovery. Now that she is officially guilty of a crime , it has become obvious that she sued me to keep me away and silent , unfortunately for her the ministry of Economic developments have a very competent team.

It should be noted that David Nathan is the director Pri flight Catering and long time co director with Terry Hay .Nathan is also a Director of the Auckland chamber of commerce, he has been aware and has been involved in the litigation against me , I can only presume that he condones this type of behaviour. I have also questioned this action with the chamber of commerce but I have been ignored by Michael Barnett.

Wells was in court on Wednesday when I appealed to the court of appeal. In time I will also be shown to be the innocent party , it’s a hard battle when you have to take on the old boys network . But in the end I have the evidence and I will keep on making as much noise as I can until this corruption is exposed.

The enforcement of the act by approved organisations – In once case this was a non existent “ organisation” run by one person piggy backing off a city councils facilities , staff and resources which left nothing to be done but collect ( into an account on he managed ) the donations and the court fines which he himself prosecuted as barrister for animal welfare offences arising out of the city employees duties which he as a city manager supervised .

This man is also the person who wrote the No 1 bill which introduced the concept of approved organisations into the act ,

he was also employed as an independent advisor to the select committee for legislation which was later to be proved to be self serving and the intent of which I can prove was established long before the bill was drafted.

This activity is considered by the untied nations to be a corrupt practice and is cover dint eh united nations convention against corruption which NZ has signed but not ratified ( I guess I can see why.. apparently we condone this type of action only those who question corruption get dealt to . )

There is no requirement of a register for people who enforce the legislation with wide sweeping powers who can penalise people and prosecute in exchanged for funds being put into their “ charities” accounts. Unlike a register and strict conditions for Private Investigators who have no powers at all.

the lack of accountability to the public for the funds which are received through these prosecutions , there is no other agency which can prosecute people and keep the money for themselves. It is a licence to print money and while the cost of lawyers are so high the economics of law enforcement encourages people to take the economic route and enter a plea of guilty to something which they cannot afford to defend.

It is also of concern that he select committee apparently feels that they can dispose of submissions which they do not wish to consider , therefore they can select the submissions before them , removing those which should rightfully be considered .

If New Zealand wants to move closer to ratifying the united nations commission against corruption then people such as myself should not have to go through what I have had to endure in order to question corrupt practices, neither should my submission be struck out when there is no lawful reason for doing so.

The select committee has options available to it and removing my submissions point blank is not one of them.

In the interest of a better New Zealand and in the interest of transparency and the fight against corruption I ask for your support.

Comments Off on Will the politicians continue to turn a blind eye ? lets see who cares!

23/01/2010

I am now in possession of my privacy act request and wish to raise some further issues.

From your web site I note that you define transparency as follows “Transparency” can be defined as a principle that allows those affected by administrative decisions, business transactions or charitable work to know not only the basic facts and figures but also the mechanisms and processes. It is the duty of civil servants, managers and trustees to act visibly, predictably and understandably.

This I believe sums up exactly what I wish to know . It is obvious those who made decision in the email poll must have known more about me than what was on my application . I would have hoped that if nothing had been supplied to the members of the board that they would have responded that they did not know enough to make a decision and asked for more information and not provided a declinature.

When I was declined I asked if I could present my self at the AGM so that the members could meet me and make an informed decision I was advised “The Board has also considered your request to attend the 2009 AGM of Transparency International (New Zealand) Inc and your request has been declined” that request was made after the declinature for membership yet you have not included those emails in the privacy request reply.

I also note by the times and dates on the emails that that I was declined before all responses were received , is that ethical?

The email dated 24 November The author has written “ Ok I vote yes for every one except XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX and the third person who is associated with them. My reason for this is that they all have very questionable tactics for achieving their political purposes which includes making slanderous statements. “ please advise

How this person obtained the information to make this statement, was it based on anything he has been told or heard in the society , or was it information obtained else where, if so which agency did it come from

i. I would like that member to provide me with the information which he had available to him on which he made that statements. I believe that this is information which needs correcting as I have been unfairly judged.

In view of that statement I also wish to know if that sentiment has been expressed verbally at any time to influence the other board members , and why is there a reference to three people when only Vince Siemer and I were declined ( yes we do compare notes )

I was also with Penny Bright yesterday and saw her information request , I wonder why she did not get a copy of that email which obviously bore her name . ( you may also want to tell her why hr application was considered and declined by a member when it had not been tabled. )

Further In the interest of transparency , I would like to know

Why you are withholding information ? and not being transparent

What information the members had in front of them when they made the decisions about membership , did they just have names or did the email sent to the board members have the application forms attached and a synopsis on each person? If so what did they have about me?

I have been on a number of societies and have always been aware that the only rules which are current are those which are filed with the registrar and sealed by him. I note that unlike other societies , your rules are not visible on the Societies web site . I note that you do have rules filed with the charities commission there is nothing in these guide lines which state what the criteria for membership is and I therefore request a copy of the criteria which I was judged against. Why can some people join and why can’t others .

My work, my background and my aims and objectives are in line with those stated in your objectives. I do much to expose corruption and was heartened by your flyer which states corruption ruins lives Fight back.

My family has been devastated because I questioned corruption. I fought back and the very organisation which encourages fighting back will not let me join therefore I cannot I can pass on what I have learnt and observed in the practical sense of fighting corruption.. its like sending the troops into battle and then abandoning them.

I did not wish to join to push my own barrow- but for the good of the public , so that the work that I am doing has wider implications. I don’t have a political agenda other than having stood for the Kiwi party in Epsom, I did not join as a Kiwi party member and I am entitled to my own political affiliations as much as I am assured freedom of association ( bill of rights )

I work at the coal face I work with the people to whom your principals apply.

I am extremely disappointed in the manner in which Transparency International has not lived up to its own objectives, what is ethical about the manner in which I have been judged? Where is the transparency ?

I can only speculate that you do not wish a person such as myself to be a member because I expose corruption and this is not in line with the perspective which you have cast on New Zealand internationally. The reality is that we are as corrupt as the next place only we pretend that we are not corrupt we beat up any one who pokes their head up and says “excuse me but isn’t that wrong?”

I see peoples lives destroyed by corruption and firmly believe that if people stopped seeing New Zealand as a corruption free zone, they may actually start asking questions , questions which would reveal the truth and then they would not be ripped off and their lives would not be destroyed.

Aside from my professional life, I am a mother and a housewife , I used to be a wife but corruption saw the end of my marriage when a lawyer decided to re write my marriage vows because I was sued for speaking the truth .( connection 2 )

I believe that if you sweep dirt under a rug sooner or later you will trip over it and it will come out. To get stains out there is nothing like sun light . Perhaps those who criticise my methods do not realise that the mechanisms that we pretend exist to deal with those issues don’t work and when people are being beaten up through the court and financially crippled because they questioned , have no alternative but to use alternative methods because no one else cares, the only ones that do have suffered the same and then we get criticised for associating with them – no doubt in an attempt to isolate the victims so that no one know how many of us there truly are.

For Four Years I have been questioning

why we allow people in New Zealand to write legislation which will further their own business interests( and provide potentially vast pecuniary income ) ,

why people in council can contract to themselves in a trading name

why it is Ok to make a false statement to the minister to set up a law enforcement agency .

Why they can solicit public donations claiming to be a charity and deposit money in a bank account only they can access

Why they can prosecute people and offer diversion for a donation to their trading name and their bank account .

Why they can use council staff , facilities and resources and claim to be charity and compete with a charity

Why the court can be used to buy silence .. I was also sued for attempting to locate a director and liquidator – the business partner of David Nathan ( chamber of commerce ) had a finger in the pie and funded the lawyers , he is now a fugitive from our laws but still used the court to beat me up . see news item

I have all the proof in the world obtained from the government departments and councils involved, yet I am the one who was taken to court for defamation for speaking the truth and denied a defence . When the judge could not find enough evidence he had to resort to Google .

It is good for business that people believe New Zealand is not corrupt.. it bankrupts many and writes off debts. I just wonder how many lives have been lost because of our corruption and the justice system which appears to support it.

I guess your reply will show prove if your organisation is farcical or not .